Daily Archives: November 12, 2012

It’s absurd to think the FBI just found out about CIA Director Petraeus’ affair with Paula Broadwell, his biographer. The timing is too convenient.

The FBI knew about the affair some time ago and, under strict orders, kept their mouths shut until just after Election Day. If they hadn’t, the scandal would have blown up during Obama’s campaign run.

During the period the FBI knew about Petraeus’ affair, they also knew he was completely vulnerable to blackmail. In FBI and CIA circles, to have done nothing about it is considered treasonous. Putting a gag on these FBI people had to been done by the White House.

The latest word is that Petraeus will not testify before Congress about what really happened in Benghazi. He “may be called” on the carpet at a future time, which could mean never.

His absence will help conceal details of the Chris Stevens murder and the build-up of US-sponsored terrorists in the Benghazi sector of Libya.

In fact, Petraeus’ initial statements to Congress, behind closed doors on September 14, led legislators to believe that absurd film trailer was the cause of the “uprising” at the house where Stevens was attacked and killed. Was the General’s ridiculous declaration made under orders from the White House, who had the blackmail goods on him?

Then, finally, on October 26th, Petraeus, perhaps fed up at how he was being used by the White House to provide cover for the president, stated: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need [in Bengazi]. Claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

In this whole scenario, we would be looking at a potential case of double blackmail. First by the White House, who knew of the affair sometime ago, and second, by whoever might have wrung CIA and military secrets out of Petraeus because they knew about his affair with Broadwell.

What does that make Paula Broadwell. In intelligence parlance, she would be a classic “honey trap.”

By circumstance, by accident, or on purpose?

She has a long military background. A graduate of West Point, she directed counter-terrorism studies at Tufts University. She worked with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. She is no innocent.

She very well knew that, during the time of their extended affair, Petraeus was vulnerable to any number of blackmail vectors. This did not make her waver.

She knew this wasn’t just some fling with a lieutenant colonel or even a run-of-the-mill general. Petraeus was head of all forces in the Afghanistan war. Then he was CIA director.

There are a lot of ways to write a biography that don’t involve sleeping with the subject and opening him up to blackmail at a very high level.

People from both sides of the aisle in Washington are expressing deep sorrow that an American hero had to resign. What nonsense. They’re building cover for Petraeus. They’re intentionally avoiding the question of what compromises he may have agreed to during his peak military service and intelligence directorship.

In Afghanistan, Petraeus was Obama’s choice to replace Stanley McChrystal, the general who blew his career during a Rolling Stone interview in which his men took pot shots at the president.

It is quite fair to ask whether Petraeus served as Obama’s man in Afghanistan under the unspoken but implied threat that, if there were any kerfuffles, any deviations, any criticisms of the White House Afghan policy, Petraeus’ affair would become public knowledge.

Despite claims by a friend that the affair with Broadwell began after Petraeus assumed leadership of the CIA, there is a strong possibility it started earlier, when Broadwell was “embedded” with the general in Afghanistan.

Was Paula Broadwell covertly working for the White House during her affair with Petraeus? Was she working for somebody else? Did she start out as an agent? Was she drawn into becoming one because she, too, as a married woman, was open to blackmail?

The public and the mainstream press, playing the part of “oh isn’t this too bad but of course nothing really serious or weird or compromising could have happened here,” doesn’t want to know how the spy game is actually played. They’d rather watch Jeopardy and pop Zoloft.

“Two people, both married, couldn’t resist a great passion. It happens. All of us make mistakes. We understand. Even great men can succumb. And she was obviously smitten. What a shame.”

Yeah. Sure.

Petraeus, the man, is now a legitimate target for serious questions. If he entered into the affair, knowing full well the blackmail it opened him up to, what is he all about? Where have his loyalties resided?

Some starry-eyed people will think asking about this is “impolite,” because, after all, “the man is an American hero.” Nonsense.

Then we have questions about Petraeus’ potential political career. The press went after him with all sorts of questions about what he might do in the 2012 election. The idea was out there. Could he run for president against Obama? Could he become the next Eisenhower?

If he had decided to make the move, he would have had a formidable number of supporters. But he adamantly said no. Was this a genuine expression of disinterest, or was Petraeus already compromised and under the thumb of the White House?

“All right, David, you’re gone from Afghanistan now. You’ve retired from the Army. The hero returns. Don’t get any ideas about running for president. You know what we know about you. By the way, the director of Central Intelligence is open. How would you like that job?”

“Oh no,” people say. “This kind of thing would never happen.”

Really? What kind of world do you think Washington is? The Peace Corp with martini lunches? The Unitarian Church with occasional brandies and cigars?

Remember Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s famous remark when she was asked about the devastation the US was wreaking in Iraq through its economic sanctions?

May 12, 1996, 60 Minutes. Lesley Stahl says: “We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”

Now that’s the real world of Washington, once the PR people get out of the way.

Blackmail of a famous general, a director of the CIA? That’s nothing.

A famous general falling under the power of blackmail? A general who knows some of the deep dark secrets about Dope Inc., the trillion-dollar opium growing operation in Afghanistan, a general whose troops have helped to restore the planting of the poppies there? A general who knows about the longed-for oil pipeline running through Afghanistan and the various persons whom it will benefit?

Could Petraeus have been a target for all manner of blackmail mounted by numerous parties?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

As of 11/9/2012 5:00 p.m. PT, the unprocessed vote count stands at 3,334,495:

Reading the county-by-county reports, the last date any of them reported in with numbers was November 8, three days ago.

Why is it taking so long for California to count all its votes? Why do so many remain uncounted at this late date?

Yes, some of them are what’s called provisional votes. That basically means they were turned in with errors, and those errors need to be tracked down and corrected. That takes time.

But large numbers of uncounted votes must be electronic. What’s the hold-up?

Looking at the most recent report on the Prop 37 results, Prop 37 is trailing by 585,464 votes.

Of the 3.3 million votes that remain uncounted, how many people voted on Prop 37, one way or the other? I don’t know.

We can fiddle with estimates and projections and try to figure out how many people would have to vote YES on 37 for a victory, but—and this is very important—a larger specter looms over all this.

I really hope you get this.

When the absurdly early call against Prop 37 was made on election night, that was a clue. It was a red flag. It was a loud siren:

“Something is very wrong here.” That was the message.

From the moment that clue sprang forth, from the moment that siren went off, we had two choices. We could say, “Well, the TV networks are insane. They’re crooked. So we need to get all the votes counted, to see what the real result is.”

Or we could say: “This early call against 37 suggests more criminality. Other crimes. How can we rely on the vote count at all? How can we assume, even when the other votes are counted, we’re going to get a true result?”

The second conclusion is the correct one. This is what I’ve been saying for the past several days.

Many people naively believe that the early call against Prop 37 was the only problem. They assume the entire vote count, when it’s finished, will be true and honest.

Let’s say you’re investigating a jewel theft. And you see a guy walking down the street and he has part of a big necklace hanging out of his pocket. Do you assume the necklace is the only stolen item he’s carrying? Or do you infer the guy is loaded with other items from the theft?

Here are two sources you can consult. The first is an extensive article by Victoria Collier about general vote-count fraud. The second is the California Secretary of State’s own 2007 “Top-to-Bottom-Review” of voting machines used in elections. This report is a mind-blower. It reveals massive opportunities for vote fraud. Should we blithely assume California has fixed all those problems?

Recently, a team at the Argonne National Lab showed how a voting machine could be hacked and controlled, using a small device that costs between $10-$26.

There was the famous 2010 experiment, in which a team from Ann Arbor, Michigan, offered to hack the District of Columbia’s voting system. They broke in and reversed the count in the mayoral election. They also fabricated absentee votes from overseas and canceled out the real votes.

AP, the giant wire service, is officially a non-profit owned by 1400 member newspapers, who use its services and also contribute articles. However, as everyone knows, the newspaper business in America is dying. Its bottom line is sitting in a lake of red ink, and the lake is sitting in an ocean of red ink.

That means these newspapers, and the corporations who own them, have been re-financing their very existence with loans, and loans to pay off earlier loans. That means banks.

Well, remember that YES ON 37 was a wedge against the assault of GMO food. It was the first of a number of dominoes that could fall against Monsanto and other GMO companies. Why? Because once consumers could see, labeled on the food they bought, whether it was GMO, they could make a choice.

And surveys indicate that huge numbers of people don’t want to eat GMO food or are at least suspicious of it.

Imagine what would happen if millions and millions of Americans, starting in California, rejected GMO food at the market.

Is that a threat to the mega-GMO-corporations who want to own the patents on all food crops on the planet? Is the Pope Catholic?

We also have more down-to-earth fiddling with Prop 37. An instant classic press conference was held a few days before the election, by the YES ON 37 forces.

This theater-of-the-absurd crashed the intent of the press conference, and in the ensuing days, just as election day loomed, sure enough, stories appeared in the press. The gist of these stories was: “no real FBI investigation”; “YES ON 37 had it wrong”; “who’s really deceiving who.”

What started out as an effort to expose very obvious lies and crimes committed by the NO ON 37 forces boomeranged completely.

So, all in all, there is substantial evidence that, in the run-up to election day, and in the criminally insane early call against Prop 37, on election night, very heavy hitters didn’t want Prop 37 to pass.

Therefore, do we foolishly assume the ongoing vote-count in California is going to be honest?

Do we assume the votes that have already been counted and reported in California are true and honest?

Do we accept that Prop 37 is now trailing by 585,464 votes?

No, no, and no.

Many people would like to think we can assume honesty in these matters. It would be nice to believe in the system. But it would a fatal error.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com